vonBredow wrote:To all the experts: was there a clear-cut "good" side in this conflict?
Erik Springelkamp wrote:I see the 30 Years War and the Dutch Revolt as a common conflict: they ended both in the same peace treaty of Westphalia
Leibstandarte wrote:I suposse that because without french money the war could had been shorter.
France (Richelieu) was only looking for french interest though. And he did brilliantly.
lecrop wrote:I don't like the "good-bad" polarizations, and I'm also a total Richelieu's fanboy
Erik Springelkamp wrote:Because of their atrocities against civilians, which were large scale.
And which were not committed in a civil war - where they tend to be unavoidable - but in a controlled war of foreign influence.
I don't really see why. From the French point of view, they were surrounded by Habsburg power. The Habsburgs controlled Spain, most of Italy, Austria, the Holy Roman Empire, and the Low Countries (apart from the bits rebelling against Spain), not to mention most of South America. Spanish troops had dominated the battlefields of Europe for a hundred years. The Emperor was trying to turn Germany into a unified state under his control, which would only add to Habsburg power.Erik Springelkamp wrote:One more remark: pointing at a "good" side is hard in this conflict, but condemning France as a "bad" side here is pretty obvious to me.
GlobalExplorer wrote:The Thirty Years War and especially France's greed was the seed of much later evil. The annexation of territory would be the unresolvable problem of France/German relationships. The weakening and separation of Germany would become a problem centuries later, when she had no real colonies, no fleet and so on.
Matto wrote:Two years old reconstruction of White Mountain battle ... you can see many "uniforms" from several types of units, some battle tactics and little bit gunpowder atmosphere ...
Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 3 guests